Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Right outcome, wrong reasons (Score -1, Troll) 61

And it is common practice. And has been for a long time. If you want to do business with the government and you can't certify that your suppliers comply with applicable rules and regulations, you either stop using them. Or give up the business opportunity. Welcome to the Federal Procurement Process.

It's a hostage situation because Anthropic is trying to insert its TOS as a poison pill into others supply chains. The Pentagon doesn't have to comply with them. But as a potential vendor, you may be exposed to tortious action. Anthropic is setting you up as a blackmail victim. Something, by the way, that counterintelligence is VERY interested in.

You are living in bizarro land.

I've been living in the DoD (now the DoW) supplier business for decades. And yes, it's bizarro land. But it's the law. Federal contracts are not some sort of UBI for crybaby companies.

Comment Right outcome, wrong reasons (Score 0) 61

Not 'punishment'. But 'not fit for use'. That is, in fact, what Anthropic says.

Anthropic says its artificial intelligence product, Claude, is not ready for safe use in fully autonomous lethal weapons or the mass surveillance of Americans.

OK. Then you don't win the bid. Assuming that the DoW worded their acquisition RFQ properly. Also, if a third party uses Claude and wishes to bid on a DoW supply contract, Anthropic's resistance to being involved in such business may put that potential third party supplier in legal risk. The DoW has a right to proactively warn future partners about such a conflict. Hence the "supply chain risk".

One of the amicus briefs described these measures as "attempted corporate murder." They might not be murder, but the evidence shows that they would cripple Anthropic.

Anthropic is taking potentially unwilling parties hostage. Anthropic has no right to impose its desires on these parties. That's restraint of trade. A violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and a felony.

Comment Dumped Grok over this (Score -1) 67

Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.

As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.

Comment Re:Apples Security features... (Score 1) 84

They are there to protect you from criminals and possibly help with privacy. It is not there to protect you from the government.

I am struggling to understand the distinction.

Of course Apple knows who their users are

The best move would have been to not know, retaining some plausible deniability. But Apple has to have that yummy, yummy revenue.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Working...